It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conspiracy against a "language of logic"

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Man it's late.

I've been up for hours, since I got home from work, connecting the dots. I started out on coffee, then switched to rum & nog, then to diet coke, so that may explain some of this.

1. Raymon Lull was a 13th century mystic, who believed he could build an artificial language, to express the basis of all philosophy. He hoped to express the ideas of Christianity in this universal language. The catholic church made him a "Doctor Illuminatus" (!), and then banned his works.

Although he published over 260 books and pamphlets in between his three missionary journeys to the muslim world, practically none of his work has been conserved; most of what remains is unpublished, with the bits that have been published being untranslated into english.


2. Giordano Bruno was a 16th century mystic, who took up the theories of Lull, and applied them both to astrology and philosophy, as well as creating tools for perfecting his own ability of memory. He advocated the Copernican theory of the heliocentric solar system, and performed public demonstrations of his incredible powers of memory. He also advocated a universal system of expressing philosophy, based on lull's work . . . and was burned at the stake.

Like Lull, Bruno's work is only mostly unavailable, except in manuscript form.


3. Gottfried Liebnitz was a 17th century genius in every field of endeavor. He was a diplomat and scientific advisor to the future King of England. Independent of Newton, he invented calculus, and simultaneously developed the modern system of calculus notation. He republished much of Raymon Lull's and Bruno's work and advocated a symbolic logic system he called combinatoria universalis, which again would put philosophy on a scientific, international footing, by being a symbolic language that all of humanity could speak and understand.

Liebnitz, tho rightly viewed as a genius, has been universally mocked for believing in a universal symbol system. He is even mocked in "gulliver's travels." For having a machine into which words could be input, and answers to questions would result, like a punch-card computer. None of his documents on the combinatoria exist, except in manuscript form, or in letters in private collections.


4. Kurt Goeddel was a genius of the twentieth century, who became known for his work in philosophy and mathematics. He emigrated to the United States, and was befriended by Albert Einstein, who wrote a friend that his own works were merely an excuse to spend time in Goeddel's company, "to walk home every day with Goeddel."

Goeddel became obsessed with Liebnitz' combinatoria universalis, and began researching Liebnitz' works and private letters for more information.

Goeddel became convinced that Liebnitz had succeeded in creating the combinatoria, but that there existed a conspiracy to suppress the information by editing it from Liebnitz' works. Goeddel further became convinced that unnamed enemies were trying to poison him because of his popularizing of Liebnitz' work. Eventually, he refused to eat any food other than meals prepared by his wife. Soon, after this decision, his wife became sick and died. Goeddel starved to death, rather than trust anyone else's cooking. He was labelled a paranoic, and it was listed as his cause of death.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by dr_strangecraft]




posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

1. Raymon Lull was a 13th century mystic, who believed he could build an artificial language, to express the basis of all philosophy.


I believe what Lull was seeking already existed. Besides, how does one compare "artificial language" to "non-artificial language"?

I like the thread, and have more than just a few thoughts on it. For now, i would like to offer another quote from a mystic many maybe familiar with:



It is given in thy writings of Scripture, although in a hidden manner, ye may observe if ye will look, how Adam named those that were brought before him in creation. Their name indicates to the carnal mind therir relationshps in the sex condition or question. (5747-3)

-Edgar Cayce


I believe if one were to know what Edgar Cayce meant by: "It is given in thy writings of Scripture, although in a hidden manner ...", one may indeed know that there is a correlation between one of the most guarded secrets (*seek writs) and the purpose of the original post in this thread.

Nice thread subject!

Thanks,
John


[edit on 30-12-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Thanks, ET.

There's another thread about "the first language" on ATS. The alchemists and mystics spoke of "the green language" or "the language of the birds" as a universal language that all humans, and even all life, shared before the fall.

I use artificial language to mean one that is intentionally constructed, usually by one person or a group of persons, rather than an a priori language with a continuously evolving lexicon and grammar; a constructed language. (I'm an avid conlanger.)

Interesting you'd mention Adam naming the creatures. In Hebrew, every name is a number, and every number a name. Liebnitz thought it was important to have an "alphabet" of names or combinations that could themselves be shorthand for complete thoughts, such as in the Rabbinic discipline of Notariqon.

The effort to construct a philosophical language has been carried out in modern times by the conlang movement; but what lull et al were striving for was something of an altogehter different order. Goeddel, for his part, believed that Liebnitz had either himself succeeded or had proof that lull/bruno had succeeded, but that the evidence had been removed. . . .

All four the principles in my OP had a fascination (obsession) with memory, and the use of language as a mnemonic device. Bruno, in particular was so adept at what we'd call photographic memory, and had such total recall, that he was accused of supernatural powers. . . .

.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
WOW. I think you most certainly have some knowledge about things.

I will continue to keep an eye on this thread, as it most certainly interests me.

I have recently authored a thread you may find some interest in, as i believe it has relevance into your studies:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

I'm curious as to what your impressions might be concerning some of the "theories" that are presented in the thread.

But, I believe this thread also contains some under-estimated truths. Under-estimated by many, perhaps. But, i suspect you may already know that "communication is key".

I hope you do not mind, but i would like to present a link in my thread for your thread, since i've gone and done it in yours.

Incidently, i do think you are on to something true in this thread.

thanks for the insight provided in this thread,
john



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Okay,....

There are a couple of things that I want to address here.


Although he published over 260 books and pamphlets in between his three missionary journeys to the muslim world, practically none of his work has been conserved; most of what remains is unpublished, with the bits that have been published being untranslated into english.



This seems to have been a universal theme for those who offended the "church" back in the day. One of the best representations of this was Bruno. He, unfortunately, lost his life because of his perceived "slight" against the "church."


Giordano Bruno was a 16th century mystic, who took up the theories of Lull, and applied them both to astrology and philosophy, as well as creating tools for perfecting his own ability of memory. He advocated the Copernican theory of the heliocentric solar system, and performed public demonstrations of his incredible powers of memory. He also advocated a universal system of expressing philosophy, based on lull's work . . . and was burned at the stake.

Giordano was a true genius of his time. Like most people of brilliance, he was quite misunderstood and stignatized. His writings were labeled "heretical" and most likely burnt.


Gottfried Liebnitz was a 17th century genius in every field of endeavor. He was a diplomat and scientific advisor to the future King of England. Independent of Newton, he invented calculus, and simultaneously developed the modern system of calculus notation. He republished much of Raymon Lull's and Bruno's work and advocated a symbolic logic system he called combinatoria universalis, which again would put philosophy on a scientific, international footing, by being a symbolic language that all of humanity could speak and understand.



Leibnitz, :shk: he may have been a genius and I may just misunderstand his point of view, but I don't care for his philosophy. Let me explain why this is. In my opinion, his Monadology is really what ushered in the ideology of Cartesian philosophy. Renes Descartes
:shk: seems to have "fed" off of the work of Leibnitz which ushered in the present materialistic world view that so many have today.

In Leibnitz' Monadology, he all but stated that the material state was all there is. Of course, Descartes took all of that a step further with his "Everything is a machine or a part of a machine" philosophy. Another philosophical view that I abhor.

Now, if I am misunderstanding Leibnitz, correct me because I have not throughly studied him. His Monadology disheartened me from really looking into him in any great depth.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Speaker of truth, I know what you mean about Liebnitz.

I'm a neoplatonist myself; the Enlightenment types were convinced that Plotinus was the root of all ignorance and superstition.

I have told myself that monadology was a combination of Liebnitz' lyric response the the celestial harmonies he heard in the music of the spheres, plus his own interpretation of the information he had.

* * * * *

It is analogous to the mechanics of Kepler, Newton, and Einstein. Kepler's work was "true," in that it provided a picture of the solar system that provided for accurate predictions of astronomical events.

Newton's work was more precise, and gave a wider paradigm of the laws of motion. Likewise, Einstein's work didn't refute Kepler and Newton, it was more of a new, larger explanation, that provided explanations for seemingly inexplicable data.

Meteorites are one of my favorite examples of the potholes inherent in science. Newton ruined the reputation of anyone who believed in the reality of meteorites, and actively suppressed all evidence that was presented to the Royal Acadamy during his tenure. Because meteorites begged the question: If gravity pulled a meteorite to earth today, what held it in the sky until now? Either gravity was not uniform, or the universe far larger than imagined, or there were exceptions to newton's worldview. As much as I admire newton's scientific integrity, he was a mere mortal, with self-imposed blinder when it came to meteoric truth.

Did Einstein debunk Newton? Did the existence of meteorites disprove him? Of course not. World-wide, mechanical engineers use Newton's equation of F=MA daily. Most of them never need Einstein's refinement of E=MC^2. For most work, from electronics to bridge construction, Newton is adequate.

In the same way, the Nomadology is an Enlightenment-era attempt to make sense of the cohesiveness, no the meaning inherent in the universe, without having to resort to superstitious gobbledygook like neoplatonic ideal forms, or unproveable revelation of religion.

You could make the argument that it was Kant who gave us the Enlightenment "dead universe." Descarte was a supernaturalist, and was Liebnitz himself. In fact, though I personally find his work distasteful, he reads a bit like a post-modern writer discussion morphogenic fields and degrees of synchronicity.

But then, philosophy is closer to poetry than it is to chemistry.

.



new topics

 
0

log in

join